Lord Rooker: The National Scrapie Plan (NSP) was launched in 2001 against a background of concern about the risks from transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) in sheep (that is, scrapie) and the theoretical risk of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). Its complementary aims have been to protect both public health and animal health and welfare by increasing the TSE resistance of the national flock, principally through its voluntary ram genotyping scheme (RGS).
	The Veterinary Laboratories Agency has tested samples where suitable material has been available from all sheep diagnosed as positive for scrapie, from 1998 to the present time, for the possible presence of BSE. Samples from nearly 3,000 animals have been tested and all have been negative for BSE. Recently, in the light of this testing, and the latest scientific knowledge and research, the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee's sheep sub-group was asked to consider the latest science underpinning the RGS. It concluded that the prevalence of BSE in the UK sheep population is most likely to be zero, or very low if present at all, and that consequently the current RGS would have little impact on public health. They concluded that the RGS was still scientifically valid with respect to animal health to protect against classical scrapie. The subgroup's statement is available at http://www.seac.gov.uk/statements/sheepsubgrp-statement131006.pdf.
	The voluntary breeding programme elements of the NSP which include the RGS (but not the statutory, EU-required elements including compulsory controls on scrapie affected farms) are currently under review.

Lord Rooker: No reliable estimate is available of the distribution of the 15 known scrapie genotypes of sheep in the national ram flock prior to the commencement of the first National Scrapie Plan (NSP) genotype testing in 2001. Relatively few breeds had been commercially testing their rams prior to 2001. Modelling done prior to the NSP(1) estimated that approximately 28 per cent of rams were of the most resistant genotype that carries two copies of the ARR allele (the allele that is most resistant to classical scrapie) and that thus had the "ARR/ARR" or NSP Type 1 genotype.
	There are 420,000 rams and ram lambs in the national flock. Since 2001, the NSP has tested over 2.6 million sheep (in all schemes) in Great Britain. Table 1 below shows the genotypes of all of those sheep. Table 2 illustrates the change in the allele percentage of ram lambs born in flocks participating in the NSP from 2002 to 2005 (the ARR allele is the most resistant to classical scrapie and the VRQ is the most susceptible in the majority of breeds). The ram lamb data for 2002 are a good starting point as the majority of these animals will have been the progeny of previously untested rams as NSP testing only commenced on a small scale in October 2001.
	(1) Arnold et al. Published in Preventative Veterinary Medicine 56, 227-229 (2002). (2) Gene component derived from one parent and contributing hereditary information from that parent.
	
		
			 Table 1 NSP data as at 29/12/2006 2001-06 All sheep tested in all NSP schemes 
			 NSP Type Genotype & Degree of resistance/susceptibility to classical scrapie Number Per cent 
			 I ARR/ARR Sheep that are genetically most resistant to scrapie. 849,304 32.3% 
			 II ARR/AHQ Sheep that are genetically resistant to scrapie, but will need careful selection when used for further breeding. 251,464 9.6% 
			 ARR/ARH 143,612 5.5% 
			 ARR/ARQ 714,617 27.1% 
			 III AHQ/AHQ Sheep that genetically have little resistance to scrapie and will need careful selection when used for further breeding. 40,552 1.5% 
			 AHQ/ARH 10,061 0.4% 
			 AHQ/ARQ 139,571 5.3% 
			 ARH/ARH 35,488 1.3% 
			 ARH/ARQ 35,961 1.4% 
			 ARQ/ARQ 237,291 9.0% 
			 IV ARR/VRQ Sheep that are genetically susceptible to scrapie and should not be used for breeding unless in the context of a controlled breeding programme approved by the NSP Administration Centre. 90,708 3.4% 
			 V AHQ/VRQ Sheep that are highly susceptible to scrapie and should not be used for breeding. 20,236 0.8% 
			 ARH/VRQ 6,039 0.2% 
			 ARQ/VRQ 48,755 1.9% 
			 VRQ/VRQ 4,489 0.2% 
			 Unknown -  4,940 0.2% 
			 Total tested 2,633,088 100.0% 
		
	
	
		
			 Table 2 Changes in allele per cent frequencies of ram lambs 2002-05 
			  ARR AHQ ARH ARQ VRQ 
			 2002 50.4 7.4 9.9 29.2 3.0 
			 2003 55.6 7.5 7.7 26.9 2.3 
			 2004 62.0 6.5 6.9 22.9 1.7 
			 2005 65.4 5.9 6.3 20.9 1.5

Lord Rooker: Some 155 cases of atypical scrapie in sheep have been detected in Great Britain. The table below breaks this down by year and genotype. Nearly all (149) have been detected through the "active" surveillance programme launched in 2002. Under this programme, almost 206,000 brain samples from sheep sent for slaughter and from fallen stock have been tested thus far for the presence of a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. The remaining six cases have been detected through passive surveillance (animals reported as exhibiting clinical signs).
	
		
			 Data as at 3 January 2007  
			 NSP Type Genotype 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total 
			 I ARR/ARR 3 7 4 1 1 16 
			 II ARR/AHQ 4 11 4 12 11 42 
			 ARR/ARH - 1 - - - 1 
			 ARR/ARQ 2 7 1 3 5 18 
			 III AHQ/AHQ 4 6 1 2 7 20 
			 AHQ/ARH - - 1 - 2 3 
			 AHQ/ARQ 3 14 2 3 12 34 
			 ARH/ARH - - - - - - 
			 ARH/ARQ - - - 1 - 1 
			 ARQ/ARQ 2 5 3 3 6 19 
			 IV ARR/VRQ - - - - - - 
			 V AHQ/VRQ - - - - - - 
			 ARH/VRQ - - - - - - 
			 ARQ/VRQ - 1 - - - 1 
			 VRQ/VRQ - - - - - - 
			 Total  18 52 16 25 44 155

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Who are the 30 highest earning firms of solicitors in the British Coal respiratory disease litigation; and what amount of legal costs was paid to each such firm.

Lord Truscott: The following table details the claimant representatives earning the most from the respiratory disease litigation:
	
		
			 Claimant Representative Total Costs Paid (£m) 
			 Thompsons 94.8 
			 Beresfords Solicitors 93.8 
			 Hugh James Ford Simey 75.4 
			 Raleys Solicitors 59.1 
			 Mark Gilbert Morse 48.6 
			 Browell Smith & Co 41.5 
			 Avalon 31.0 
			 Watson Burton 25.0 
			 Union of Democratic Mineworkers 22.7 
			 Graysons 22.1 
			 Barber & Co 19.5 
			 Randell Lloyd Jenkins & Martin 16.0 
			 Corries 14.6 
			 The Legal Warehouse 13.7 
			 Ingrams Solicitors 13.2 
			 Towells Solicitors 11.8 
			 AMS Law 11.5 
			 Irwin Mitchell 11.1 
			 Moss Solicitors 10.7 
			 Delta Legal 9.1 
			 BRM Solicitors 8.9 
			 Kidd & Spoor Harper Solicitors 8.8 
			 Gorman Hamilton Solicitors 8.3 
			 Wake Smith 8.1 
			 Birchall Blackburn 7.7 
			 Atteys 6.3 
			 O H Parsons 6.2 
			 Hilary Meredith Solicitors 5.0 
			 Shaw & Co Solicitors 4.4 
			 Simpson Millar Solicitors 3.9

Lord Truscott: The following table details the claimant representatives earning the most from the vibration white finger litigation:
	
		
			 Claimant Representative Total Costs Paid (£m) 
			 Thompsons 11.6 
			 Browell Smith & Co 9.7 
			 Raleys Solicitors 7.7 
			 Hugh James Ford Simey 6.6 
			 Union of Democratic Mineworkers 6.1 
			 Graysons 4.7 
			 Beresfords Solicitors 4.0 
			 Watson Burton 3.5 
			 Moss Solicitors 3.3 
			 Towells Solicitors 3.1 
			 Atteys 2.2 
			 Kidd & Spoor Harper Solicitors 2.2 
			 AMS Law 2.1 
			 O H Parsons 1.7 
			 Irwin Mitchell 1.6 
			 Saffmans Solicitors 1.6 
			 Shaw & Co Solicitors 1.5 
			 Kingslegal 1.3 
			 Corries 1.2 
			 McLeish Carswell 1.2 
			 Oxley & Coward Solicitors 1.1 
			 Latham & Co Solicitors 1.1 
			 T S Edwards & Son Solicitors 0.9 
			 Hickmotts Solicitors 0.8 
			 Mortons Solicitors 0.8 
			 Thompson & Co Solicitors 0.8 
			 Hopkins 0.8 
			 Marrons Solicitors 0.7 
			 Keeble Hawson Moorhouse 0.6 
			 Gorman Hamilton Solicitors 0.6

Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the total sum of legal costs, including those incurred at trial and paid to solicitors and barristers in the British Coal Vibration White Finger Litigation.

Lord Tebbit: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Baroness Scotland of Asthal on 8 November (WA 197), whether their research into the causes of crime suggests that the disparity of two-to-one in the propensity of males and females to commit crime arises either from social or from biological factors.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Home Office research into the causes of crime has not included any exploration of the potential role of biological factors in the increased propensity shown by men or women to commit crime.
	Research summarised in The impact of corrections on re-offending: a review of what works (HORS 291, 2006) discusses a range of factors, or "criminogenic needs", predictive of offending in relation to the differences between men and women in the frequency and nature of offending. Evidence suggests that female offenders have higher levels of need in the areas of relationships and emotional well-being, while male offenders had higher levels of need with regard to offending, alcohol misuse, thinking and behaviour and attitudes.
	Self-report offending studies have consistently shown that men are more likely to commit offences than women although the gender gap varies according to type of offence. The existing research does not show that the gap is caused solely by social factors or solely by biological factors.
	The Home Office has recently published Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System which provides further details of the nature of offending carried out by women (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs06/s95women0405.pdf).

Lord Triesman: According to the conclusions of the June 2006 European Council, the German presidency will present a report at the June 2007 European Council based on extensive consultations with member states. The report will contain an assessment of the state of discussion on the constitutional treaty and explore possible future developments. We expect these discussions to commence shortly. The Government's approach to these discussions was set out in a Written Ministerial Statement to the House by my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe on 5 December 2006 (Official Report, col. WS 10-11).

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: This data are derived from local management information and are therefore provisional and subject to change.
	As at 8 December 2006, the latest date for which data are available, there were 170 claimants detained under the detained fast-track (DFT) process of whom 125 were male and 50 were female (figures are rounded to the nearest five). For details of nationality and length of detention, please see the attached table.
	National statistics on the total number of people detained under sole Immigration Act powers are published quarterly and annually. Copies are available from the Library of the House and on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration1.html.
	There were 125 male claimants from 33 nationalities in the detained fast-track (DFT) process. The average period in detention per detainee since date of entry to the DFT process was 45 days.
	
		
			 Nationality Number of Male Detainees (1) Average Number of Days in DFT 
			 Afghanistan 15 27 
			 Angola 5 33 
			 Bangladesh 10 44 
			 Dem. Rep. of Congo 5 39 
			 Gambia 5 41 
			 Jamaica 5 33 
			 Kenya 5 58 
			 Nigeria 5 70 
			 Pakistan 15 46 
			 Russia 5 14 
			 Sudan 10 81 
			 Turkey 15 37 
			 Uganda 5 101 
			 Other nationalities 20 35 
			 Total 125 45 
			 (1) Figures are rounded to the nearest five 
		
	
	There were 50 female claimants from 22 nationalities in the detained fast-track (DFT) process. The average period in detention per detainee since date of entry to the DFT process was 21 days.
	
		
			 Nationality Number of female detainees(1) Average Number of Days in DFT 
			 China 5 22 
			 Gambia 5 24 
			 Georgia 5 16 
			 Nigeria 10 22 
			 Pakistan 5 23 
			 Uganda 5 31 
			 Other nationalities 20 18 
			 Total 50 21 
			 (1) Figures are rounded to the nearest five

Lord Hylton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they have made an assessment of the joint report, The Destination Trap, published on7 November by Refugee Action and Amnesty International; and, if so, whether they will respond to its conclusions.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Upon arrival in prisons, HM Prison Service provide the Immigration and Nationality Directorate with details of all foreign national prisoners, and all prisoners whose nationality has not been established, to enable the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to conduct enquiries and confirm nationality.
	All foreign national prisoners have the opportunity to provide representations against deportation and long-term residency in the United Kingdom is a factor that is taken into consideration when assessing whether a prisoner from a European Economic Area (EEA) country is liable to deportation. Consideration to deport prisoners from EEA countries is made in accordance with the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006.
	On 9 October the Secretary of State for the Home Department explained that in view of the interpretation given to current provisions in respect of EEA nationals, HMG will seek to bring forward changes in the law in order to clarify and strengthen the link between criminality and deportation. In the mean time we will ensure that only those cases which have a reasonable prospect of success within the current interpretation of the legislative provisions will be given priority, and robustly pursued.

Lord Ramsbotham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they have made in implementing the recommendations set out in Chapter 8 of the Clark report of 15 April 2003 (Report of an investigation into the management of HMP Wormwood Scrubs between 1 January 1994 and31 December 1998); and, if they have decided not to implement them, why they reached that decision.

Lord Ramsbotham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Why they will not implement certain recommendations set out in section 4 of the April 2004 report by Peter Quinn and Peter Siddons (HMP Wormwood Scrubs Review of Civil Litigation).

Lord Ramsbotham: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	On what date the H M Chief Inspector of Prisons was supplied with reports of internal inquiries on events at HMP Wormwood Scrubs, including the London Area Office review of the criminal litigation, the Hind report (October 2002), the Clark report (15 April 2003) and the report by Peter Quinn and Peter Siddons (April 2004).

Lord Rooker: Tables showing the information requested are provided below.
	
		
			 Number of persons proceeded against at magistrates' courts, found guilty and sentenced at all courts for certain offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Sections 33 and 34 
			 Offence description Principal statute Year  Total proceeded against Found guilty Total for sentence 
			 Contravening conditions of a waste management licence Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (6) 2001  147 109 109 
			 2002  172 121 119 
			 2003 (2) 147 101 102 
			 2004  256 185 185 
			 2005  315 233 232 
			 Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting the deposition, treating, keeping or disposing of controlled (but not special) in or on land without a licence Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (8) 2001  127 107 106 
			 2002  178 148 150 
			 2003 (2) 178 139 139 
			 2004  184 137 136 
			 2005  254 209 208 
			 Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting the deposition of controlled special waste in or on land without a licence Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (9) 2001  22 17 18 
			 2002  21 20 20 
			 2003 (2) 25 27 27 
			 2004  37 27 27 
			 2005  69 56 56 
			 Handling, controlling or transferring controlled waste without taking reasonable measures. Failing to comply with the secretary of states requirements. Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 34 2001  129 96 96 
			 2002  149 107 107 
			 2003 (2) 157 111 111 
			 2004  235 159 159 
			 2005  310 186 186 
			 Depositing litter Environmental Protection Act 1990 S.87 2001  363 271 271 
			 2002  280 215 215 
			 2003  441 325 325 
			 2004  812 586 586 
			 2005  1,368 971 971 
		
	
	
		
			  Sentence breakdown 
			 Principal statute Year Absolute discharge Conditional discharge Fine Average fine (£'s) Community sentences Fully suspended sentence Immediate custody Otherwise dealt with 
			 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (6) 2001 2 12 92 883 2 - - 1 
			 2002 4 25 79 1,024 9 - - 2 
			 2003 - 13 84 1,026 2 1 1 1 
			 2004 - 27 145 722 10 - 2 1 
			 2005 1 26 182 968 17 - 1 5 
			 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (8) 2001 1 12 83 914 6 - 4 - 
			 2002 - 22 113 620 11 - 3 1 
			 2003 1 23 107 820 3 1 4 - 
			 2004 2 22 96 1,086 12 - - 4 
			 2005 1 29 168 1,481 7 - 1 2 
			 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (9) 2001 - 2 11 905 3 - 2 - 
			 2002 1 6 13 1,477 - - - - 
			 2003 - 2 22 3,425 2 - 1 - 
			 2004 - 2 24 847 1 - - - 
			 2005 - 9 44 944 2 1 - - 
			 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 34 2001 - 19 77 238 - - - - 
			 2002 2 27 78 327 - - - - 
			 2003 - 16 94 354 - - - 1 
			 2004 1 31 124 359 1 - - 2 
			 2005 6 30 148 402 - - - 2 
			 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 87 2001 8 20 241 86 1 - - 1 
			 2002 14 13 184 69 1 - - 3 
			 2003 13 21 286 114 2 - - 3 
			 2004 10 23 545 101 3 - - 5 
			 2005 18 23 926 102 1 - - 3 
		
	
	(1) These data are provided on a principal offence basis.
	(2) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by police forces and courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
	Source: Criminal Justice Systems Analysis, RDS - OCJR.
	IOS: 002-07
	
		
			 Number of other defendants(1) proceeded against at magistrates' courts, found guilty and sentenced at all courts for certain offences under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Sections 33 and 34 
			 Offence description Principal statute Year Total proceeded against Found guilty Total for sentence 
			 Contravening conditions of a waste management licence Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (6) 2001 194 138 138 
			 2002 240 170 168 
			 2003 202 138 139 
			 2004 311 215 215 
			 2005 414 283 281 
			 Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting the deposition, treating, keeping or disposing of controlled (but not special) in or on land without a licence Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (8) 2001 146 124 123 
			 2002 216 177 179 
			 2003 200 158 158 
			 2004 222 164 163 
			 2005 296 245 244 
			 Depositing, causing the deposition or permitting the deposition of controlled special waste in or on land without a licence Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (9) 2001 30 24 25 
			 2002 30 26 27 
			 2003 33 34 34 
			 2004 56 39 39 
			 2005 86 67 67 
			 Handling, controlling or transferring controlled waste without taking reasonable measures. Failing to comply with the Secretary of State's requirements. Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 342001 171 123 123 
			 2002 196 147 148 
			 2003 224 151 151 
			 2004 319 207 208 
			 2005 412 262 262 
			 Depositing litter Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 87 2001 403 299 299 
			 2002 295 227 227 
			 2003 454 332 332 
			 2004 826 592 592 
			 2005 1,405 985 985 
		
	
	
		
			   Sentence breakdown  
			 Principal statute Year Absolute discharge Conditional discharge Fine Average fine (£'s) Community sentences Fully suspended sentence Immediate custody Otherwise dealt with 
			 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (6) 2001 2 12 121 3,581 2 - - 1 
			 2002 4 27 125 4,121 9 - - 3 
			 2003 - 14 120 4,124 2 1 1 1 
			 2004 - 28 174 4,548 10 - 2 1 
			 2005 2 27 229 2,741 17 - 1 5 
			 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (8) 2001 1 13 99 3,278 6 - 4 - 
			 2002 - 22 141 4,017 11 - 3 2 
			 2003 1 24 125 3,503 3 1 4 - 
			 2004 2 23 122 3,283 12 - - 4 
			 2005 1 29 204 4,726 7 - 1 2 
			 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 33 (9) 2001 - 3 16 2,860 3 - 2 1 
			 2002 1 6 20 7,357 - - - - 
			 2003 - 2 29 9,050 2 - 1 - 
			 2004 - 2 36 4,902 1 - - - 
			 2005 - 9 55 6,634 2 1 - - 
			 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 342001 - 20 103 1,555 - - - - 
			 2002 2 28 118 1,395 - - - - 
			 2003 - 20 130 849 - - - 1 
			 2004 2 35 168 2,393 1 - - 2 
			 2005 8 35 217 791 - - - 2 
			 Environmental Protection Act 1990 Section 87 2001 8 21 267 217 1 - - 2 
			 2002 14 14 195 241 1 - - 3 
			 2003 14 21 292 304 2 - - 3 
			 2004 10 23 551 242 3 - - 5 
			 2005 18 23 940 521 1 - - 3 
		
	
	(1) Includes companies etc.
	(2) These data are provided on a principal offence basis.
	(3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by police forces and courts. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.
	Source: Criminal Justice Systems Analysis, RDS - OCJR.
	IOS: 002-07
	Background Note
	1. The information in the tables is taken from the Court Proceedings Database held by the Office for Criminal Justice Reform and gives the number of persons and companies proceeded against at magistrates courts, found guilty at all courts and sentence breakdowns, including average fine amounts, for selected offences related to fly tipping and littering, in England from 2001 to 2005.
	2. The statistics relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences the principal offence is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.
	3. These data are a further breakdown of that published in the Criminal Statistics, Supplementary Volumes for England and Wales for the years 2001-2005.